MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116968340 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae22d3

Evidence for Gravitational Lensing in FRB 20190320B: A Potential Lens Mass of ∼420 Solar Masses

2025· article· en· W7116968340 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shaowei Xiong, Shuo XIAO, Zheng-Huo Jiang, Yang Lai, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Ru-Shuang Zhao, Ziyi You

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational lensRedshiftLens (geology)Strong gravitational lensingWeak gravitational lensingSolar mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Due to their millisecond-duration pulses and high flux, fast radio bursts (FRBs) are ideal probes for detecting low-mass gravitational lensing signals, as their distinctive characteristics make them highly sensitive to subtle time delays and lensing effects. We search for lensing events using the high-time-resolution (2.56 μ s) channelized raw voltage (baseband) data of 58 FRBs consisting of at least two components publicly released by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment/FRB Collaboration, which allows the microstructures of FRBs to be better resolved compared to the intensity data. We apply different algorithms to examine these FRBs and identify a lensing candidate, FRB 20190320B, with a delay of ∼1.24 ms and an intensity ratio of ∼1.16 between the two pulses. Although some methods show a significance exceeding 5 σ , we conservatively regard this event as a candidate due to the potential limitations of these methods. Assuming it is indeed a lensed signal, we estimate its redshifted lens mass to be ∼424 M ⊙ , which ranks among the lowest mass estimates reported for candidate lensed FRBs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→